Same reason a 747 or a C-5 doesn't have one.
US are openly talking about space extended territoriality.
Because it has an inherent intact abort capability over 99% of its flight envelope with an over 90% chance of success and decades of flight experience and data to back up that claim? Otherwise... No, not the reason.
Because it has an inherent intact abort capability over 99% of its flight envelope with an over 90% chance of success and decades of flight experience and data to back up that claim? Otherwise... No, not the reason.
With all respect, but if we are talking about a spaceship, any kind of abort capability is useful only on less than 1% of its "flight envelope".
Space travel will present unique safety challenges specific to its' environment. Nonetheless, there is already an analog to it today. It operates in an unforgiving and lethal medium and yet does not rely on escape pods or a separable structure.
In the world of nuclear submarines, design seeks to drive failure to the lowest possible level backed up by protocols to operate and maintain equipment with a culture that eliminates slipshod or incompetent behavior. It seems to have worked for over 50 years now.
Something similar to the "subsafe" process for design, maintenance, and operation of spacecraft will be needed. For launch and re-entry, the kinetic and thermal energies are so extreme, abort opportunities are limited. Autonomous operation and putting sensors everywhere to constantly analyze system performance for signs of anomalous behavior is a given.
Unfortunately, it would be a miracle if no serious accident occurs over time. But mandating architectures which only governments could afford effectively shuts down any idea of meaningful expansion in space development.
Thanks but it's not that simple and it depends on the system and launch vehicle as well. Orion is aiming for 100% ascent coverage, (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140011918.pdf) but as the video notes there are always going to be spots you can't abort from. Also as noted Starship can possible prove it's 'safe-enough' but that's not clear yet and won't until it has a actual (and much deeper) flight history. It's SpaceX's decision to make.
It's odd to think there may be enough politicians with a different understanding of risk/benefit to stay out of Spacex's way but I am willing to bet there is.
And there is the added plus that it would be unpopular for them to act otherwise.
I am also willing to extend enough benefit of doubt to think a majority is also able to comprehend the long term eventuality of a major accident and can accept it as long as it was not caused by corrupt decision making or sloppy procedures. Of course, this doesn't take into account contrived media hyperventilating.
I mean, that 99% of spaceship flight is performed in the situation, where no cost-effective escape system could be of much use. For example, if you are coasting to Mars and suddenly found out that your engines are busted and could not perform a deceleration burn, there could be no escape system that would have enough delta-V to return you to Earth (unless you have a torchship, of course, with secondary engine system)
Not in a SpaceX thread. That was a Boeing/ULA effort.Guys where are we discussing Boeing Starliner that just miss its orbit (and ISS).?
Guys where are we discussing Boeing Starliner that just miss its orbit (and ISS).?
Recap where we are:
- "Off nominal" insertion occurred. @BoeingSpace & @NASA will not say if it was Atlas or Starliner issue.
- Before Orbit Insertion Burn, Starliner couldn't be placed in correct attitude
- Some kind of burn limped Starliner to orbit.
There's just the one, at the end of 2020. (Which, if history is any indicator, means early 2021.I for one look forward to more launches of the Falcon Heavy in 2020.
One Falcon heavy launch in 2020 and could slip into 2021? I would have thought that SpaceX would have used the Heavy a lot more often than that.![]()
One Falcon heavy launch in 2020 and could slip into 2021? I would have thought that SpaceX would have used the Heavy a lot more often than that.![]()
Falcon 9 capability grew quite a bit between Heavy development starting and Heavy flying. Many payloads that would have flown on Heavy were able to fly on F9 instead.
Before the end of January, SpaceX aims to perform four Falcon 9 launches from Florida’s Space Coast — three for the company’s Starlink broadband network, and a crucial in-flight abort test for the Crew Dragon spacecraft no earlier than Jan. 11.
“I think in 2020 we’ll do more, and that’s because of Starlink,” she said in a roundtable discussion with reporters earlier this month. “I think we will have 14 or 15 non-Starlink launches, and then we’ll fly Starlink as often as we can.
“I need second stages to be built a little bit faster, but we would probably shoot for 35 to 38 missions next year,” Shotwell said.
They can’t use it if they don’t have the customers for it. The only ones going forward seems to be the US government.One Falcon heavy launch in 2020 and could slip into 2021? I would have thought that SpaceX would have used the Heavy a lot more often than that.![]()
Spacex launch cadence ramping up in 2020.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/12/...nch-cadence-with-series-of-starlink-missions/
Before the end of January, SpaceX aims to perform four Falcon 9 launches from Florida’s Space Coast — three for the company’s Starlink broadband network, and a crucial in-flight abort test for the Crew Dragon spacecraft no earlier than Jan. 11.
“I think in 2020 we’ll do more, and that’s because of Starlink,” she said in a roundtable discussion with reporters earlier this month. “I think we will have 14 or 15 non-Starlink launches, and then we’ll fly Starlink as often as we can.
“I need second stages to be built a little bit faster, but we would probably shoot for 35 to 38 missions next year,” Shotwell said.
Space Videos
4K video of the #SpaceX #Dragon as it approached the ISS on 8th December. Mission CRS-19 was NASA's Cargo Resupply Mission to the space station.
This video was created using thousands of individual photos taken by astronauts aboard the ISS then using software to interpolate missing frames, we have been able to recreate it in real-time.
The process isn't perfect and you may notice some artifacts but I think that on the whole it looks pretty cool!
Thanks for watching - why not support this channel and help us grow.
...
Was up all night with SpaceX team working on Starship tank dome production (most difficult part of primary structure). Dawn arrives … pic.twitter.com/SzyDSYUYOu
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 27, 2019
We’re now building flight design of Starship SN1, but each SN will have at least minor improvements, at least through SN20 or so of Starship V1.0.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 28, 2019
Flight is hopefully 2 to 3 months away
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 28, 2019
Done by dawn
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 28, 2019
In the world of nuclear submarines, design seeks to drive failure to the lowest possible level backed up by protocols to operate and maintain equipment with a culture that eliminates slipshod or incompetent behavior. It seems to have worked for over 50 years now.
Trying to create a giant stainless steel skydiving reusable spaceship is the gamble of a lifetime but if it succeeds you can get images like this.